Transcription

1 Econometrica, Vol. 76, No. 2 (March, 2008), ANTICIPATING REGRET: WHY FEWER OPTIONS MAY BE BETTER TODD SARVER Northwestern niversity, Evanston, IL 60208,.S.A. The copyright to this Article is held by the Econometric Society. It may be downloaded, printed and reproduced only for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs. No downloading or copying may be done for any commercial purpose without the explicit permission of the Econometric Society. For such commercial purposes contact the Office of the Econometric Society (contact information may be found at the website or in the back cover of Econometrica). This statement must the included on all copies of this Article that are made available electronically or in any other format.

2 Econometrica, Vol. 76, No. 2 (March, 2008), ANTICIPATING REGRET: WHY FEWER OPTIONS MAY BE BETTER BY TODD SARVER 1 We study preferences over menus which can be represented as if the agent selects an alternative from a menu and experiences regret if her choice is ex post inferior. Since regret arises from comparisons between the alternative selected and the other available alternatives, our axioms reflect the agent s desire to limit her options. We prove that our representation is essentially unique. We also introduce two measures of comparative regret attitudes and relate them to our representation. Finally, we explore the formal connection between the present work and the literature on temptation. KEYWORDS: Regret, preference for commitment, subjective state space. I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it you will regret both. Soren Kierkegaard 1. INTRODCTION 1.1. Brief Overview PEOPLE OFTEN FACE DECISIONS in which they are not certain of the better course of action. These decisions could be of great consequence, such as whether to marry, take a new job, or move to a new city, and they could also be as simple as what to order for dinner at a restaurant. Even if an agent makes the best decision given the information available at the time, she may still feel a sense of loss or regret if she comes to find that another alternative would have been better. Such an agent may prefer to have fewer options so as to reduce the chance that her choice will be wrong ex post. Following Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2001), we investigate preferences over menus of lotteries. We consider an agent who chooses a menu in period 0 and subsequently selects an alternative (lottery) from that menu in period 1. Our interpretation is that the agent makes both of these decisions prior to the resolution of some subjective uncertainty and then experiences regret if her chosen alternative is ex post inferior to another alternative on the menu. We show that by simply observing the agent s preference over menus, we can determine whether her choices can be modeled as if she anticipates regret. Our main result is a representation theorem for what we refer to as regret preferences. 1 I wish to thank Haluk Ergin, Peter Klibanoff, Marco LiCalzi, Massimo Marinacci, Jawwad Noor, Marciano Siniscalchi, numerous seminar participants, a co-editor, and three anonymous referees for helpful comments. I am particularly grateful to Bart Lipman for detailed comments and for his encouragement when this project was in its formative stages. 263

3 264 TODD SARVER Since regret arises in our model from ex post comparisons between the alternative selected and the other available alternatives, a regret preference will reflect the agent s desire to limit her options. Our main axiom identifies precisely when restricting options is beneficial to the agent. Formally, suppose there are two lotteries, p and q, such that the agent prefers the menu containing only p to the menu containing only q. Thatis,{p} {q}. We refer to the agent s preference over singleton menus as her commitment preference since {p} {q} implies the agent would choose p over q if she could commit in period 0. The commitment preference reflects the agent s ex ante expectation of the value of each alternative. We assume that in period 1 the agent will continue to rank alternatives according to her commitment preference and hence will choose p over q when choosing from any menu containing both lotteries. 2 Therefore, if {p} {q}, then p dominates q in the sense that q cannot add value to any menu that already contains p. This property leads to our main axiom, which we refer to as dominance: If{p} {q} and p A, then A A {q}. One can further understand the dominance axiom by contrasting our regret model with the standard model. In the standard model, the agent does not experience regret and therefore values a menu based on its best element. For such an agent, if {p} {q} for some p A, then q is no better than the best element in A and, therefore, A A {q}. The dominance axiom relaxes this condition to allow for A A {q}. Intuitively, even if there is a p A that is expected to be better than q ex ante (that is, {p} {q}), there may be some state in which q gives a higher ex post utility than p (or any other element of A). Therefore, for an agent who experiences regret, adding q to the menu A will strictly increase her regret in this state. Thus an agent who anticipates regret may strictly prefer A to A {q}. We identify a regret preference with the dominance axiom and three additional axioms. These axioms are variations of the standard expected-utility axioms: weak order (the preference is complete and transitive), continuity, and independence Preview of Results We now describe the functional form identified by our representation theorem. The agent faces some subjective uncertainty that affects her future tastes. We model this uncertainty using a probability measure μ over a set of possible ex post utility functions. We refer to the utility functions u as states and we impose the restriction that each u be a von Neumann Morgenstern expected-utility function. Note that both and μ arise as part 2 This assumption is important for isolating regret from other factors that may lead the agent to want to limit her alternatives, such as temptation. Intuitively, temptation may cause the agent to knowingly pick a suboptimal alternative from a menu. To distinguish from temptation, we focus on regret where the agent s choices from menus in period 1 are precisely the alternatives that she would want to commit to in period 0, that is, those that she expects will be optimal ex ante.

4 ANTICIPATING REGRET 265 of the representation they are not directly observable, but instead must be elicited from the agent s preferences. For any realized state u and any lottery p, the agent s ex post utility is denoted by u(p). In our representation, ex post regret for a realization of the agent s tastes u is proportional to the difference between the maximum ex post utility attainable from the menu A under u and the actual utility attained from the agent s choice. That is, if the agent chooses p from the menu A, then her ex post regret in state u is [ R(p A u) = K max q A ] u(q) u(p) where K 0. The constant K can be thought of as representing the strength of regret. The agent s preference over menus is represented as if she chooses p from the menu A to maximize the ex ante expectation of utility minus regret 3 : V(A)= max [u(p) R(p A u)]μ(du) Note that the agent experiences no regret when A is a singleton menu. That is, R(p A u) = 0ifA ={p}. This property of the representation may give the impression that the agent does not regret her choice of menu in our model. However, as we discuss in detail in Section 4.3, our model can be thought of as describing the additional regret (on top of the regret associated with menu choice) that the agent experiences because of her choice from a menu and the effect it has on her preference over menus. We now give a numerical example to illustrate the role of regret in this representation. EXAMPLE 1: Suppose an agent is going to make a reservation at one of several restaurants. Restaurant 1 serves a beef dish (b) and a chicken dish (c). Restaurant 2 serves only the beef dish, and restaurant 3 serves only the chicken dish. Therefore, the set of alternatives is Z ={b c}, and the menus are A 1 ={b c}, A 2 ={b}, anda 3 ={c}. Suppose the agent has two possible ex post utility functions, so that = {u 1 u 2 }. Also, suppose μ({u 1 }) = μ({u 2 }) = 0 5, K 0, and the expected-utility functions u 1 and u 2 take values on Z given by u 1 u 2 b 4 2 c Since only the agent s preference over menus is observed, her choice from a menu is part of the interpretation of the model.

5 266 TODD SARVER In words, the agent is uncertain whether she will like beef or chicken best, but she likes beef better on average. As illustrated above, the agent experiences no regret from a singleton menu. Therefore, V({b}) = 3andV({c}) = 2 5. The ex post regret for the menu A 1 ={b c} and each selection from this menu is summarized by u 1 u 2 b 0 2K c 3K 0 Choosing beef from the menu A 1 leads to an ex ante expectation of utility minus regret of 3 K, whereas choosing chicken yields K. Theagent will therefore choose beef from the menu A 1, and hence V({b c}) = 3 K. 4 If is the preference induced by this representation, then we have {b} {c} and, as required by the dominance axiom, {b} {b c}. However, note that V({b c}) maybelargerorsmallerthanv({c}), depending on the value of K. Intuitively, adding beef to a menu of just chicken gives the agent a better alternative, but also introduces regret. Which of these effects is stronger depends on the parameters of the model. We return to this issue when we discuss comparative regret attitudes in Section 3.3. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We discuss our model in detail in Section 2, presenting our representation in Section 2.1 andour axioms in Section 2.2. Our main results are contained in Section 3. We present our representation theorem and sketch its proof in Section 3.1, and we present our uniqueness results in Section 3.2. In Section 3.3, we introduce two measures of comparative regret attitudes and discuss implications for our representation. Section 4 contains a discussion of related models and extensions of our model. In Section 4.1, we relate our model to the existing literature on regret, including the regret theory introduced by Bell (1982) and Loomes and Sugden (1982). We explain how our model differs from this literature in terms of both primitives and the type of behavior used to identify regret. In Section 4.2, we give a detailed discussion of the relationship between regret and temptation. Since temptation is similar to anticipated regret in that both may cause an agent to benefit from commitment, we make the relationship between the two more precise by comparing a generalization of our representation with the temptation representations of Gul and Pesendorfer (2001)and Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2007). Finally, in Section 4.3, we discuss an important extension our model in which the agent is allowed to regret both her choice of alternative and her choice of menu, and we find that our current model of regret is consistent with this more general model. 4 Note that beef being the optimal choice from A 1 is consistent with our earlier claim that the agent will choose from a menu according to her commitment preference. In Section 2.1,we verify that this is a general property of our representation.

6 ANTICIPATING REGRET THE MODEL Let Z be a finite set of prizes, and let Δ(Z) denote the set of all probability distributions on Z, endowed with the Euclidean metric d. 5 Let A denote the collection of all closed subsets of Δ(Z). We refer to the sets A A as menus and we endow A with the Hausdorff metric, defined by { d h (A B) = max max } min d(p q) max min d(p q) q B p B q A For any A B A and α [0 1], define the convex combination of these two menus by αa + (1 α)b ={αp + (1 α)q : p A and q B}. The primitive of our model is a binary relation on A, representing the agent s preference over menus. We have in mind an agent facing a two-period decision problem. The agent chooses a menu in period 0 and subsequently selects a lottery from that menu in period 1. However, we do not explicitly model the agent s period 1 choice, leaving it as part of the interpretation of the agent s period 0 preference Representation We model the agent s uncertainty about her future tastes using a probability measure over a set of possible ex post utility functions, which we refer to as states. We impose the restriction that each ex post utility function in our representation be a von Neumann Morgenstern expected-utility function. Since expected-utility functions on Δ(Z) are equivalent to vectors in R Z,wewilluse the notation u(p) and p u interchangeably. Moreover, since expected-utility functions are only unique up to an affine transformation, it is possible to impose a normalization on the set of ex post utility functions in our representation. Define the set of normalized (nonconstant) expected-utility functions on Δ(Z) to be { (1) = u R Z : u z = 0 u 2 z } = 1 z Z z Z For any û R Z (i.e., any expected-utility function), there exist α 0, β R, and u such that û = αu + β. Therefore, modulo an affine transformation, contains all possible ex post expected-utility functions. sing this canonical state space, we define a regret representation as follows: 5 Since Z is finite, the topology generated by d is equivalent to the topology of weak convergence on Δ(Z).

7 268 TODD SARVER DEFINITION 1: A regret representation is a pair (μ K) that consists of a finite (and countably additive) Borel probability measure μ on and a constant K 0 such that is represented by the function V : A R defined by (2) V(A)= max [u(p) R(p A u)]μ(du) where (3) [ R(p A u) = K max q A ] u(q) u(p) The interpretation of this representation is just as in the Introduction. The agent has subjective uncertainty about her future tastes, and when evaluating a menu, the agent anticipates the following: She will select an item from the menu ex ante (before the subjective state is realized) and she will experience regret after the state is realized if her choice is ex post inferior. Her value for the menu is therefore based on her expectation of utility minus regret. Note that the normalization placed on in Equation (1) imposes no real restrictions on the representation. Any representation of the form given in Equations (2) and(3), where is allowed to be a (nonnormalized) set of ex post expected-utility functions (as in Example 1), can, after appropriate rescaling of the measure, be written as a regret representation with defined by Equation (1). Thus our representation theorem would continue to hold without the normalization of. We impose this normalization for the simple reason that it makes the statement of our uniqueness results more straightforward. When we discussed our axioms in the Introduction, we made the assumption that the agent chooses out of a menu according to her commitment preference. For the (interpreted) choice of lottery in our representation to be consistent with this assumption, it must be that a lottery is a maximizer in Equation (2)if and only if it solves max V({p}). It is easily seen that a regret representation indeed satisfies this property when Equations (2) and(3) are combined and rewritten as 6 (4) [ ] V(A)= max (1 + K) u(p)μ(du) K max u(q)μ(du) q A Intuitively, the agent in our model chooses a lottery to maximize the expectation of her utility minus regret. However, the lottery that maximizes her 6 Although the agent s period 1 choice of lottery is part of the interpretation of the representation, it is a fairly straightforward exercise to add a choice correspondence to the primitives of the model, thus formally capturing the agent s choice from each menu. The choice from menus given by this correspondence will be consistent with our interpretation of the representation if and only if the alternatives chosen from each menu are those that maximize the commitment preference.

8 ANTICIPATING REGRET 269 expected utility also minimizes the expectation of her regret. Therefore, although regret may cause the agent in our model to sometimes prefer committing to smaller menus, it does not distort the agent s choice from a menu. This observation touches upon an issue that we will discuss in more detail in Section 4.1: While existing models of regret (see Bell (1982), Loomes and Sugden (1982, 1987), Sugden (1993), Hayashi (2007)) only identify regret through its distorting effect on an agent s choice of alternative from a menu, by instead examining preferences over menus, we are able to identify regret even when it does not distort choice from menus Axioms We impose four axioms on preferences. The first three are standard axioms in the setting of preferences over menus: AXIOM 1 Weak Order: is complete and transitive. AXIOM 2 Strong Continuity: 1. von Neumann Morgenstern (vnm) Continuity: If A B C, then there exist α ᾱ (0 1) such that αa + (1 α)c B ᾱa + (1 ᾱ)c 2. Lipschitz (L) Continuity: There exist menus A A A and M>0 such that for every A B A and α (0 1) with d h (A B) α/m, (1 α)a + αa (1 α)b + αa AXIOM 3 Independence: If A B, then for all C and all α (0 1], αa + (1 α)c αb + (1 α)c We refer the reader to Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2001)andDekel,Lipman, Rustichini, and Sarver (2007, henceforth DLRS) for a discussion of these axioms. The independence axiom was also discussed by Gul and Pesendorfer (2001) in their model of temptation. The following axiom allows for the possibility of regret: AXIOM 4 Dominance: If {p} {q} and p A, then A A {q}. As we discussed in the Introduction, in a standard model, the agent values a menu based on its best element. For such an agent, if {p} {q} for some p A, then A A {q}. The dominance axiom relaxes this condition to allow for A A {q}. Intuitively, adding an alternative to a menu that is not ultimately chosen in period 1 cannot increase the utility of the agent. Moreover, since we

9 270 TODD SARVER assume that the agent s period 1 choice is made according to her commitment preference, {p} {q} implies the agent does at least as well by choosing p from the menu A {q} as she does by choosing q. Therefore, the addition of q to the menu A cannot benefit the agent. However, it can hurt the agent if there is a state in which q is better than every element of A, as the agent would experience increased regret in this state. 3. MAIN RESLTS 3.1. Representation Theorem The following is our main representation theorem: THEOREM 1: A preference has a regret representation if and only if it satisfies weak order, strong continuity, independence, and dominance. Given this result, we refer to a preference that satisfies weak order, strong continuity, independence, and dominance as a regret preference. In the remainder of this section, we prove the necessity of the axioms in Theorem 1 and sketch the intuition behind the sufficiency of the axioms. The formal proof of sufficiency is contained in Appendix C.1. The first step in establishing Theorem 1 is to note that the regret representation is a special case of what Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2001) refer to as an additive expected-utility (E) representation. Taking as defined in Equation (1), we define the following (normalized) version of their representation: DEFINITION 2: An additive E representation is a finite (and countably additive) signed Borel measure μ on such that is represented by the function V : A R defined by (5) V(A)= max u(p) μ(du) The following is the Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2001) representation theorem as presented in the Supplemental material to DLRS (2007) 7 : THEOREM 2: A preference has an additive E representation if and only if it satisfies weak order, strong continuity, and independence. 7 Although Definition 2 differs slightly from the original definition of the additive E representation given in Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2001), it is easily verified that the two formulations are equivalent. Moreover, the proof of Theorem 2 contained in the Supplemental material to DLRS (2007) uses precisely the normalized form of the representation defined above.

10 ANTICIPATING REGRET 271 In light of Theorem 2, the necessity of weak order, strong continuity, and independence in Theorem 1 is established by showing that the regret representation is a special case of the additive E representation: LEMMA 1: Any regret representation can be written as an additive E representation. PROOF: For ease of manipulation, we will work with the formulation of the regret representation given in Equation (4). Note that (1 + K) u( )μ(du)is itself an expected-utility function and therefore must equal αū + β for some ū, α 0, and β R. By the definition of it follows that β = 0, and hence Equation (4) can be written as V(A)= max αū(p) K max u(q) μ(du) q A Therefore, define a new signed measure ν, for any Borel set E, by { Kμ(E) if ū/ E, ν(e) = α Kμ(E) if ū E. Then, the above expression simplifies to V(A)= max u(p)ν(du) which completes the proof. Q.E.D. The necessity of the dominance axiom is established by the following lemma: LEMMA 2: A preference with a regret representation must satisfy dominance. PROOF: Suppose has a regret representation, formulated as in Equation (4), and suppose A A and q Δ(Z) are such that there exists p A with {p} {q}. Notice that {p} {q} if and only if V({p}) V({q}) if and only if u(p)μ(du) u(q)μ(du) Therefore, the addition of {q} to the menu A leaves the first term of Equation (4) unchanged: max ˆ [ (1 + K) ] [ ] u( ˆp)μ(du) = max (1 + K) u( ˆp)μ(du) ˆ {q}

11 272 TODD SARVER Clearly, we also have max ˆ u( ˆp) max ˆ {q} u( ˆp) for all u. Thus the second term of Equation (4) becomes weakly smaller (i.e., more negative) whenever more items are added to a menu, which implies V(A) V(A {q}) or, equivalently, A A {q}. Q.E.D. We now give the intuition behind the sufficiency of the axioms in Theorem 1. From Theorem 2, we know that if satisfies weak order, strong continuity, and independence, then it has an additive E representation. We want to show that if also satisfies dominance, then this representation can be written as a regret representation. For simplicity, we will assume that the support of the measure μ in the additive E representation is finite, but the proof in the Appendix deals with the more general case. If the support of μ is finite, then Equation (5) can be written as V(A)= u supp(μ) μ(u) max u(p) Note that μ is a signed measure, so some states may be given negative weight. Thus supp(μ) can be indexed by a pair of finite sets I + and I,whereμ(u i )> 0fori I + and μ(u i )<0fori I. Letting α i = μ(u i ) > 0, Equation (5) becomes V(A)= i I + α i max u i (p) α i max u i (p) i I Therefore, the sign of μ is very important, as it determines whether adding options to a menu has a positive or negative effect on utility in a given state. We refer to the states indexed by I + as positive states and to the states indexed by I as negative states. Negative states will turn out to be key to capturing regret. Define v : Δ(Z) R by v(p) = V({p}) for p Δ(Z). Thusv represents the agent s preference over singletons (i.e., her commitment preference). 8 We will show that dominance implies that any positive state in this additive E representation can be written as an affine transformation of v. Thensomesimple algebraic manipulations will yield the finite-state version of Equation (4). Our first step is to show that any positive state must have the same level curves as v and be increasing in the same direction as v. Sincev and each of the u i are expected-utility functions, their level curves are linear. Now consider any state i such that u i and v do not have the same level curves. We can always choose a menu A A and a lottery q Δ(Z) such that adding q to A increases the maximum value of u i, but does not increase the maximum value of v or 8 Note that our notation differs from that of Gul and Pesendorfer (2001),whousedv to indicate a temptation ranking.

12 ANTICIPATING REGRET 273 FIGRE 1. Dominance. u j for j i. This is illustrated for a two-state additive E representation in Figure 1. The line labeled u 1 indicates the level curve for u 1 that is tangent to the set A this is the highest level curve for u 1 attainable under the menu A. Notice that q gives a higher value for u 1 than is possible under A, but adding q to A does not increase the maximum value of v or u 2. Take any p A that maximizes v over A. Since adding q to A does not increase the maximum value of v, we have that v(p) v(q). This is also illustrated in Figure 1. Then the definition of v implies that {p} {q} and, therefore, dominance implies that V(A) V(A {q}). Since the only state that attains a different maximum expected utility under A and A {q} is i, itmust be that i I.Thatis,i must be a negative state. Thus, as claimed, any positive state must have the same level curves as v and be increasing in the same direction. Note that by the definition of this implies there can be at most one positive state. If we denote the single positive state by 0, then we have shown that V is of the form V(A)= α 0 max u 0 (p) α i max u i (p) i I Moreover, since v and α 0 u 0 are affine, share the same indifference curves, and are increasing in the same direction, it is a standard result that α 0 u 0 = αv + β for some α 0andβ R (see Lemma 14). For expositional purposes, we make the simplifying assumption that α>1andβ = 0. Therefore, we have V(A)= max[αv(p)] α i max u i (p) i I Taking any p Δ(Z), this equation implies v(p) = αv(p) i I α i u i (p),and hence (α 1)v = i I α i u i.let ˆ V = (α 1)V and let K = α 1. Then we

13 274 TODD SARVER have V(A)= ˆ max[α(α 1)v(p)] (α 1) α i max u i (p) i I [ = max (1 + K) ] α i u i (p) i I K α i max u i (p) i I After normalizing the α i s to be probabilities by dividing by i I α i,weobtain a finite-state version of Equation (4) niqueness of the Representation As in the previous section, let v denote the utility function for singleton menus induced by a regret representation. That is, for a regret representation (μ K), define the function v : Δ(Z) R,forp Δ(Z), by (6) v(p) = V({p}) = u(p)μ(du) Also define r : A R,forA A,by (7) r(a) = min R(p A u)μ(du) [ = min K max q A ] u(q) u(p) μ(du) The function r(a) represents the minimal expected regret that the agent can experience when faced with the menu A. As we discussed in Section 2.1, ina regret representation the lottery that maximizes the expectation of utility also minimizes expected regret. Thus for any menu A A, the agent will choose p A to maximize v(p),and V(A)= max v(p) r(a) The functions v and r will be useful for understanding the uniqueness properties of our representation (and for analyzing comparative regret attitudes in Section 3.3). In this section, we first consider the extent to which the functions v and r are identified. Then we turn to the uniqueness of the underlying parameters that determine v and r. Our first uniqueness result is that for any regret preference, the v and r that arise from a regret representation are unique up to a common scalar multiple. THEOREM 3: Two regret representations (μ K) and (μ K ) represent the same preference if and only if there exists α>0 such that v = αv and r = αr.

14 ANTICIPATING REGRET 275 PROOF: Only if. We have already proved that any regret representation is an additive E representation (see Lemma 1). The mixture space theorem can be applied to this setting to show that the function V given by an additive E representation is unique up to a positive affine transformation. 9 Therefore, there exist α>0andβ R such that V = αv + β, which implies v = αv + β. Treating v as a vector in R Z and recalling the definition of, note that v z = [ ] [ (8) u z μ(du) = u z ]μ(du) = 0 z z z Similarly, z v z = 0. It follows that β = 0.10 Finally, for all A A, [ r (A) = max v (p) V (A) = α max ] v(p) V(A) = αr(a) If.Ifv = αv and r = αr, then an argument similar to that given above shows that V = αv, and hence V and V represent the same preference. Q.E.D. To obtain a uniqueness result for the parameters (μ K) in a regret representation, we now restrict attention to regret representations in which regret plays a nontrivial role, that is, there is some menu A for which r(a) > 0. Before presenting our main uniqueness result, we note an interesting relationship between this property of the representation and the following axiom: AXIOM 5 Monotonicity: If A B, then B A. Kreps (1979) interpreted this axiom in terms of an agent who is uncertain of her tastes when she chooses a menu, but realizes her tastes before she chooses an alternative from a menu. Thus the agent has a preference for flexibility. However, in our representation the agent must choose from a menu before she realizes her tastes. Therefore, flexibility is not valuable in our model, and it can be harmful if additional options increase regret. We see that dominance and monotonicity have a trivial intersection in the sense that an agent with a regret preference that also satisfies monotonicity neither values flexibility nor experiences regret: LEMMA 3: Suppose is a regret preference and hence has a regret representation. Then r(a) = 0 for all A A if and only if satisfies monotonicity. 9 See the proof of Proposition 2 in Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2001) for a detailed explanation. 10 To see this, let p = (1/ Z 1/ Z ). Then z v z = 0impliesv(p ) = 0, and z v z = 0 implies v (p ) = 0. Therefore, 0 = v (p ) = αv(p ) + β = β.

15 276 TODD SARVER PROOF: Only if. Suppose r(a) = 0forallA A.IfB C, then V(B)= max p B v(p) max v(p) = V(C) p C and hence C B. If. We prove by establishing the contrapositive. Suppose there exists A A such that r(a) > 0. We want to show that monotonicity is violated. Let p arg max v(p).then{ p} A and V({ p}) = v( p) = max v(p) > max v(p) r(a) = V(A) violating monotonicity. Q.E.D. Given this relationship between r and the monotonicity axiom, we say that a regret preference is nontrivial if it violates monotonicity. That is, is a nontrivial regret preference if there exist A B A such that A B and A B. Our uniqueness theorem for the parameters (μ K) will have two parts, depending on whether or not the agent is indifferent between all singleton menus, that is, whether or not the following axiom is satisfied: AXIOM 6 Singleton Nontriviality: There exist p q Δ(Z) with {p} {q}. To state our uniqueness result for the case when satisfies singleton nontriviality, we need to define the norm of an expected-utility function. Take any regret representation (μ K) and define v by Equation (6). Define the norm of v, denoted v, to be the Euclidean norm of v when considered as a vector in R Z. The following lemma provides a technical result that is needed for the subsequent theorem. LEMMA 4: Suppose (μ K) represents the preference and v is defined by Equation (6). Then v 0 if and only if satisfies singleton nontriviality, and in this case v v. See Appendix C.2 for the proof. We can now state our main uniqueness result. Let δ v/ v denote the Dirac v (probability) measure concentrated at. Note that Lemma 4 is needed to v ensure that this is a measure on. THEOREM 4: Suppose (μ K) represents a nontrivial regret preference. 1. If satisfies singleton nontriviality, then (μ K ) also represents if and only if there exists 0 <α< 1 such that 1 v [ μ = αμ + (1 α)δ v/ v and K = α ] (9) K α v

16 ANTICIPATING REGRET If violates singleton nontriviality, then (μ K ) also represents if and only if μ = μ and K > 0. See Appendix C.3 for the proof. To interpret part 1 of Theorem 4, suppose (μ K) is a regret representation for a preference that satisfies singleton nontriviality. Defining v as in Equation (6), consider the probability measure δ v/ v. Note that if an agent has a regret representation with measure δ v/ v, then this agent has no subjective uncertainty, as she knows with probability 1 that her ex post preference will be given by v. Therefore, regardless of the constant in the representation, this v agent will experience no regret: Given any A A, she will choose p A to v maximize p, and this will be the ex post wrong choice with probability 0. v Now, consider (μ K ) defined as in Equation (9) forsomeα (0 1). 11 As α gets smaller, μ v puts greater probability mass on a single point,. Therefore, v the probability of ex post regret becomes smaller as α decreases, so K must be increased to compensate. This intuition is confirmed by Equation (9), as it is readily seen that K increases as α decreases. Part 1 of Theorem 4 highlights the difficulty of identifying the strength of regret, K, in our model. The agent s preference over menus indicates the combined effect of her strength of regret and degree of uncertainty, but it is not possible to completely differentiate these two factors. As the previous paragraph illustrates, we are unable to distinguish between an agent who is fairly certain of her future tastes but has a strong sense of regret and an agent who is more uncertain of her tastes but has a weaker sense of regret. However, Theorem 4 implies that these two effects are jointly identified when satisfies singleton nontriviality. In particular, if (μ K) and (μ K ) are two regret representations for a preference satisfying singleton nontriviality, then μ = μ if and only if K = K. To interpret part 2 of Theorem 4, note that when an agent has a preference that violates singleton nontriviality, the sole objective of this agent is to minimize expected regret. Because the agent has no utility function over singletons against which to measure this regret, it is impossible to pin down the constant K in the representation. However, in this case the measure in the representation is uniquely identified. 11 Note that Theorem 4 actually allows for α>1. In other words, it is possible to shift probability mass away from v 1. However, the restriction that α< is needed to ensure that v 1 v K > 0. In addition, since the measure in a regret representation is required to be a probability measure, μ must be nonnegative and, hence, there is also an implicit restriction that α 1. 1 μ({v/ v })

17 278 TODD SARVER 3.3. Comparing Regret Attitudes In this section, we present two measures of regret attitudes of a preference. The first is a comparative measure of the incidence of regret, and the second is a comparative measure of the strength of regret. For a regret preference, we say that A dominates B with respect to if for all q B there exists a p A such that {p} {q}. A relatively straightforward consequence of our axioms is that whenever A dominates B with respect to a regret preference, wehavea A B (see Lemma 11 in Appendix C.1). Thus adding a dominated set of alternatives to a menu can never be an improvement. When the addition of a dominated set leads to an increase in regret, the original menu must be strictly preferred to the addition of this set to the menu. Therefore, by observing how often adding dominated sets of alternatives to a menu leads to a strict decrease in utility, we can determine how regret prone a preference is: DEFINITION 3: Suppose 1 and 2 are two regret preferences. We say that 1 is more regret prone than 2 if for all A B A such that A dominates B with respect to 1 and 2, A 2 A B A 1 A B The following theorem characterizes this measure of regret attitudes in terms of our representation. As in the previous section, is a nontrivial regret preference if there exist menus A B A such that A B and A B. Singleton nontriviality and the function v are also defined as in the previous section. 12 THEOREM 5: Suppose (μ 1 K 1 ) and (μ 2 K 2 ) represent the nontrivial regret preferences 1 and 2, respectively, and suppose these preferences satisfy singleton nontriviality. Then 1 is more regret prone than 2 if and only if (10) supp(μ 2 ) supp(μ 1 ) { v1 v 1 } { v2 v 2 See Appendix C.4 for the proof. Suppose (μ 1 K 1 ) represents a nontrivial regret preference 1. Adding a set of alternatives B to a menu A that does not increase the maximum value of v 1 cannot increase the utility of the menu. In addition, if the alternatives in B increase the maximum value of u for some u supp(μ 1 ), then with positive probability the agent will regret not choosing one of these new alternatives. } 12 Singleton nontriviality can be dropped from Theorem 5 if Equation (10)isreplacedwiththe following more general condition: If u supp(μ 2 ) is not a positive affine transformation of v 1 or v 2,thenu supp(μ 1 ).

18 ANTICIPATING REGRET 279 Therefore, a measure with a larger support leads to an increased incidence of regret. We now introduce a comparative measure of the strength of regret of a preference 13 : DEFINITION 4: Suppose 1 and 2 are two regret preferences. We say that 1 is more regret averse than 2 if for all A A and p Δ(Z), {p} 2 A {p} 1 A sing singleton menus as benchmarks for comparison, this measure considers the trade-off between adding potentially better alternatives to a menu and the regret that could arise from having more alternatives from which to choose. To illustrate more concretely, consider again Example 1. Recall that Z ={b c} and the regret representation satisfied V({b}) = 3, V({c}) = 2 5, and V({b c}) = 3 K. Suppose is the preference induced by this representation. Then {b} {c} and, as required by the dominance axiom, {b} {b c}. However, dominance is silent about which of {c} or {c s} will be preferred. Clearly, this will depend on the value of K (i.e., the strength of regret) in the representation: {b c} {c} for small K and {c} {b c} for large K. Hence, adding the better alternative b to the menu {c} is beneficial precisely when regret is weaker, and this intuition is generalized in Definition 4. Our notion of comparative regret aversion is similar in spirit to the literature on comparative ambiguity aversion. Both Epstein (1999) and Ghirardato and Marinacci (2002) defined comparative ambiguity aversion by comparing arbitrary acts to unambiguous acts in the same manner that we compare arbitrary menus to singleton menus (although each uses a different definition of what constitutes an unambiguous act). Ahn (2007) considered ambiguity aversion in the current preferences-over-menus framework and proposed a measure of comparative ambiguity aversion that is almost identical to our Definition 4. The following theorem examines the relationship between regret aversion and the regret representation. Note that v and r are defined as in Equations (6) and (7), respectively Note that if 1 is more regret averse than 2, then both preferences have the same commitment preference: For any p q Δ(Z), taking A ={q} in Definition 4 gives the condition {p} 2 {q} {p} 1 {q}, which when combined with our other axioms implies {p} 2 {q} {p} 1 {q}. 14 Singleton nontriviality is needed in Theorem 6 to ensure that comparative regret aversion is an informative measure. For example, suppose 1 and 2 are two regret preferences. Also, for i = 1 2, suppose that {p} i {q} for all p q Δ(Z) and A i {p} for any nonsingleton A A. If Z 3, then there are many different regret preferences that satisfy these conditions. However, since A i {p} for all p Δ(Z) and for all nonsingleton A A, Definition 4 does not get any traction. That is, we find both that 1 is more regret averse than 2 and that 2 is more regret averse than 1, even though we have hardly specified any properties of these regret preferences.

19 280 TODD SARVER THEOREM 6: Suppose 1 and 2 are two regret preferences that satisfy singleton nontriviality, and suppose (μ 1 K 1 ) and (μ 2 K 2 ) are regret representations for 1 and 2, respectively. The following statements are equivalent: 1. 1 is more regret averse than There exists α>0 such that v 2 = αv 1 and r 2 αr 1. See Appendix C.5 for the proof. The interpretation of this result is straightforward. If 1 is more regret averse than 2, then modulo transformation by a scalar multiple, r 1 is larger than r 2. Thus an agent with preference 1 expects to experience more regret from any menu than an agent with preference DISCSSION AND EXTENSIONS We have presented a model of regret in which preferences over menus are represented by an easily interpreted functional form: It is as if the agent chooses a single alternative from a menu prior to the resolution of her subjective uncertainty and experiences regret if her choice is wrong ex post. We proved that our representation is essentially unique, and we introduced two measures of comparative regret attitudes. We conclude by discussing two related areas of research and presenting an important extension of our model. In Section 4.1, we discuss the related literature on regret. In Section 4.2, we relate our model of regret to the literature on temptation. Finally, in Section 4.3, we present an extension of our model that allows the agent to regret her choice of menu Related Models of Regret The present work is similar in spirit to so-called regret theory (see Bell (1982), Loomes and Sugden (1982, 1987), Sugden (1993)). However, our emphasis is quite different. Like our model, classic regret theory posits that the agent will experience regret if, after the resolution of uncertainty, her choice is inferior to another alternative. It is then assumed that the anticipation of this regret will affect the agent s decisions, an assumption we also make. However, despite these intuitive similarities, our approach has a very different foundation. Sugden (1993) gave an axiomatic treatment of regret theory by considering preferences over acts that are conditional on the feasible set of alternatives. Hence, the emphasis of his regret theory is on the effect of anticipated regret on the agent s choice from a menu. In contrast, the present work is set in a 15 This does not necessarily imply that the first agent has a larger strength of regret, K, than the second. Recall from Section 3.2 that an agent s expected regret depends on the combination of her strength of regret and degree of uncertainty, and these two factors cannot be separately identified.

20 ANTICIPATING REGRET 281 preferences-over-menus framework, and thus our focus is on the effect of regret on the agent s choice of menu. Recall from Section 2.1 that the agent in our model is assumed to choose from a menu according to her commitment preference. Hence, the agent s (interpreted) choice from menus in our model is the same as that of a standard expected-utility maximizer, and thus by only examining the agent s choice from menus, it is impossible to determine whether or not the agent anticipates regret. In contrast, in classic regret theory, regret takes a nonlinear form which allows it to be identified by observing choice from menus. Although models of nonlinear regret are both interesting and plausible, we find the preferencesover-menus framework appealing because it also allows for the identification of simple linear forms of regret, such as the current model. Regret was also studied by Hayashi (2007), who obtained a representation for a choice correspondence from menus of acts in which the agent minimizes her maximum regret. 16 His representation is a generalization of the minimax regret theory of Savage (1954). Aside from the different primitives, there are two main distinctions between these models and the present model: First, in models of minimax regret, the agent s only decision criterion is the minimization of maximum regret. In contrast, in our representation, the agent compromises between two objectives, minimizing regret and maximizing ex post expected utility. Second, the agent in our model is Bayesian, whereas the pessimism of the agent in models of minimax regret can be interpreted in terms of ambiguity. Specifically, the representation of Hayashi (2007) involves multiple priors and, in the case of a single prior, reduces to a standard model of utility maximization Temptation or State-Dependent Regret? In this section, we show how the temptation representations of Gul and Pesendorfer (2001)and Dekel, Lipman, and Rustichini (2007)arerelatedto what we refer to as a state-dependent regret representation. Each of the temptation representations we discuss is a special case of the additive E representation. 17 In addition, each representation has a finite state space, so for ease of comparison, we restrict attention to finite-state-space representations throughout this section. 16 Related representations in that framework were also considered by Stoye (2007). 17 Technically, the expected-utility functions in these temptation representations are not required to be in the set. Nonetheless, it is straightforward to verify that these representations could be normalized and written in the form of Definition 2. We should also note that Gul and Pesendorfer (2001) allowed for a more general domain by permitting the set of prizes, Z, to be any compact metric space.

The Inaugural Coase Lecture An Introduction to Regression Analysis Alan O. Sykes * Regression analysis is a statistical tool for the investigation of relationships between variables. Usually, the investigator

WHICH SCORING RULE MAXIMIZES CONDORCET EFFICIENCY? DAVIDE P. CERVONE, WILLIAM V. GEHRLEIN, AND WILLIAM S. ZWICKER Abstract. Consider an election in which each of the n voters casts a vote consisting of

If You re So Smart, Why Aren t You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets Lawrence Blume and David Easley Department of Economics Cornell University July 2002 Today: June 24, 2004 The

Not Only What but also When: A Theory of Dynamic Voluntary Disclosure By ILAN GUTTMAN, ILAN KREMER, AND ANDRZEJ SKRZYPACZ We examine a dynamic model of voluntary disclosure of multiple pieces of private

Inequality and Growth: What Can the Data Say? Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo June 2003 Abstract This paper describes the correlations between inequality and the growth rates in crosscountry data.

Review of Economic Studies (2006) 73, 689 714 0034-6527/06/00250689$02.00 Contracting with Diversely Naive Agents KFIR ELIAZ New York University and RAN SPIEGLER School of Economics, Tel Aviv University

Chapter 2 Switching Algebra and Logic Gates The word algebra in the title of this chapter should alert you that more mathematics is coming. No doubt, some of you are itching to get on with digital design

Subspace Pursuit for Compressive Sensing: Closing the Gap Between Performance and Complexity Wei Dai and Olgica Milenkovic Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Experimental Economics, 5:53 84 (2002) c 2002 Economic Science Association Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses WILLIAM T. HARBAUGH University

Paper to be presented at the DRUID Academy 2012 on January 19-21 at University of Cambridge /The Moeller Centre Great Minds Think Alike, and Fools Seldom Differ: A Theory on the Moments of Firms' Performance

Matching with Contracts By JOHN WILLIAM HATFIELD AND PAUL R. MILGROM* We develop a model of matching with contracts which incorporates, as special cases, the college admissions problem, the Kelso-Crawford

Selling assets: When is the whole worth more than the sum of its parts? Robert Marquez University of California, Davis Rajdeep Singh University of Minnesota October, 214 Abstract When is it better to sell

The Tenuous Trade-Off between Risk and Incentives Author(s): Canice Prendergast Source: The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 110, No. 5 (Oct., 2002), pp. 1071-1102 Published by: The University of Chicago

THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LV, NO. 1 FEBRUARY 2000 Investing for the Long Run when Returns Are Predictable NICHOLAS BARBERIS* ABSTRACT We examine how the evidence of predictability in asset returns affects